Talk:Agnes Mary Mansour/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Where is the lead? Regarding the prose, there are a couple of minor things I will fix.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   That one {{citation needed}} tag needs to be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have an issue with the sentence "Unusually, Bevilacqua sent a letter directly to Mansour without communicating his intention to President Kane or any of the Detroit leaders of the Sisters of Mercy." The word "unusually" seems to be adding some bias. If it's not usual for him to have done this, perhaps more information on what is normal protocol would be helpful.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image needs a caption

7. Overall: This is a good article, with the exception of the lead, which is woefully short and does not incorporate the most defining issue of her life. The lead needs to be expanded per MOS:LEAD. I'll put this on hold for improvements.

   Pass/Fail:

Okay, I will consider the problem and expand the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I put an image caption in place, I replaced a fact tag with a cite, and I believe I addressed the "unusually" issue, explaining it to the reader. I'm still considering the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing those issues. All that's needed now is an expansion of the lead. What is already there can stay, but there needs to be discussion of the controversy regarding the abortion stance. If I can ask a favor, please try to have this done by Thursday December 22 at the latest, because after that I'll be traveling with minimal access to a computer. I'd like to close this before I leave. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I lengthened the lead section. Let me know if it needs further tweaking. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That'll do. I can pass this as a good article now. Well done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fine review, especially for not tossing the nomination out after seeing the two tags! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)